calvinklai
commented
10 years ago Okay, should be good to look at now!
Open calvinklai opened 10 years ago
calvinklai
commented
10 years ago Okay, should be good to look at now!
bnosek
commented
10 years ago :+1: This looks great. Nice job.
For discussion items:
A: yes, I like the items as is
B: If they can be reminded at one point, but not make a big deal of it otherwise, it might be wise to remind of party membership.
calvinklai
commented
10 years ago I just wrote out three possible mechanisms for the effects we observed in Study 1. I think we can do a fairly good job of determining whether it's Mechanism B, but don't have an airtight method for parsing out possible contributiions of A or C. Any ideas?
A) A Zeignarik-like effect: Unsatisfied goals are sticky - they remain active in memory long after the event has ended. For supporters of a loser, the goal of seeing their cause win remains active in memory and interferes with retrieval of the actual event.
B) Selective exposure or mental rehearsal. Perhaps supporters who had their desires affirmed (e.g., Seahawks fans) spend more time reading about how awesome it was that their team won, talking about it with fellow fans, etc. On the flip side, supporters who had their desires dash spend time reading about how they "almost" won, less time talking about how they lost, etc.
C) Source-monitoring issues. Relative to explicit memory, implicit memory tends to be less adept at accounting for where an idea comes from. Implicit memories may not easily discriminate between mentally simulated scenarios and desires for a particular event from the actual outcome of an event.
calvinklai
commented
10 years ago Also, there is an explanation D: A direct effect of attitudes on the aIAT (either due to methodological impurity, or due to something about implicit memories themselves)
Lynn Sanders suggested that one way to get at this is to run a parallel data collection at UVA where we conduct the same test, making it clear what the party affiliations for each candidate is. Assuming that most UVA folks aren't following the Florida election, observing any relationship between attitudes and aIAT scores for UVA participants would imply that Explanation D is at play.
calvinklai
commented
10 years ago I do not think it would be tough to do a similar collection at UVA for 2 sessions, but am least interested in this explanation. If you guys think it's important, I can get it set up. I personally find explanation D the least interesting of the four explanations, and would prefer to pursue it only if the other ones aren't panning out.
bnosek
commented
10 years ago These are good ideas.
Explanation D seems reasonably plausible, and I like Lynn's idea for testing it. Seeing a similar effect at UVa for the Florida election would not conclusively support it, but not seeing a similar effect would provide some good evidence against it.
If D, it could be a boring or interesting explanation after unpacking it some.
It is certainly worth considering a data collection, but weighing against your alternatives (and time).
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Calvin K. Lai notifications@github.com wrote:
I do not think it would be tough to do a similar collection at UVA for 2 sessions, but am least interested in this explanation. If you guys think it's important, I can get it set up. I personally find explanation D the least interesting of the four explanations, and would prefer to pursue it only if the other ones aren't panning out.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/calvinklai/electiondesires/issues/9#issuecomment-55460158 .
In order of presentation:
Favorite candidate Who would you vote for governor in the 2014 Florida governor's race?
Self-perceptions of political knowledge How closely have you been following the 2014 Florida governor's race?
How knowledgeable are you about the 2014 Florida governor's race?
Expectations/Knowledge of Election Outcome Who do you think will win the 2014 Florida governor's race? [BEFORE ELECTION]
Who do you think won the 2014 Florida governor's race? [AFTER ELECTION]
Attitudes Which statement best describes you?
Actual political knowledge (random order) 1) Who is currently Governor of the state of Florida? Jeb Bush Charlie Crist Rick Scott Adrian Wyllie None of the above 2) Which of the following people changed their party affiliation from Republican to Independent to Democratic between the years 2010 and 2012? Jeb Bush Charlie Crist Rick Scott Adrian Wyllie None of the above
3) Will the state of Florida be voting on whether to legalize medical marijuana in this midterm election? Yes No I don’t know
4) Will the state of Florida be voting on whether to allow same-sex marriage in this midterm election? Yes No I don’t know
5) What is the capital of Florida? Jacksonville Miami Orlando Tallahassee Tampa
6) What is the length of a Governor’s term in office in the state of Florida? 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years
Political Ideology and Partisanship Please indicate how you identify on political issues.
What is your party identification?
If you had to choose between Democrats and Republicans, how would you identify your political affiliation?
Aspects of the Memory - Emotionality, Interest, Rehearsal, Remembering vs. Knowing How intense was your emotional reaction when you heard the news of the election outcome?
How closely did you follow the news on election day?
How much have you thought about the outcome of the election since it happened?
How much have you talked about the outcome of the election since it happened?
I feel like I remember finding out about the outcome of the election rather than just knowing it happened.
Discussion Items
A. Should we include third-party candidates when asking about expectations/knowledge/preferences? Pro: We get good coverage of possible answers. Con: We will probably exclude folks who don't answer Scott or Crist for many analyses (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
B. When mentioning Charlie Crist and Rick Scott outside of the IAT, shall we make their party information salient? (e.g., Charlie Crist (D), Rick Scott (R)). Pro: It's helpful for low-information voters to construct preferences Con: It may mess up measurement because participants will temporarily over-rely on partisan cues.